So one McDonalds Manager is to be roasted for this... but I guess the executives at Harrahs casino in nevada, and the staff for Harry Reid get a pass on this?

http://www.nationalreview.com/battle...elizabeth-crum

The quote to:
The Reid staffer suggests that Harrah’s execs “put a headlock on your supervisors to get them to follow through.” is in fact a suggestion to use PHYSICAL COERCION.

But funny - no one wants to discuss this little tidbit do they? You don't hear a blip on it - but how many of you subsimmers think that the one McDonalds employs more than Harrahs in Nevada?

Edit - as for the pamphlet being illegal - the law says no political material may be "attached" to their paycheck. Unless the manager stapled the pamphlet to their check, or he required some level of proof that the employee had voted as he wanted to recieve their paycheck, there was no "attachment" involved, and thus no violation of law. What is it when you suggest someone physically assault someone to get them to do what you want though? If it is actually done its definitely a violation of law....

Good link!

I read that a certain Las Vegas Casino did the same thing for its employees.

Unions do the same thing with its membership. This is much ado about nothing. SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions that donations in kind and money is a form of speech protected against government intervention by the fourth amendment.

OK, I'll bite the bullet. Given the relative benefits and costs, I'll say that I prefer for the boss to hold his tongue on this issue. It is his employee's duty, in a reasonably free country w/ a reasonably free press, to educate themselves of the pros and cons of each party's position to themselves, and make a choice. The employer marks his ballot in a way that he hopes will favor him, and his employees do the same.

Further, even if you insist that the net costs and benefits means the employer should have informed them in some manner, I repeat
If a boss must educate (rather than instruct) his subordinates about how to vote, he should be as NPOV as possible. One possible idea may be, if the company has the equivalent of a newsletter, to use that to explain the platform of both sides, and the pros and cons of each. That may not be perfect but it beats the idea of slipping only one position into a paycheck all hollow.

As for Unions, one should graduate from the defense "everyone is doing it" by the time they leave primary school...

To say that "everyone is doing it is a grade school defense" is fine - but ONLY if you are fairly castigating ALL entities that are participating. To fail to do so is to support an existing double standard.

Notice that the pamphlet didn't say wages would be CUT - it said future raises, etc would be at risk. It didn't say that if you voted wrong that you would lose your job, it said that depending on who was elected, future growth opportunity could be affected.

There was no violation of law, though one could argue it was rather a "dirty" thing to do. Yet there is a clear violation of law in the Harrah's example, but it seems that the left on this board is intent on continuing to ignore that episode entirely.

Wonder why? Same reason they want to ignore the fact that union programmed machines repeatedly demonstrated "programming errors" that resulted in many votes for republicans being recorded as votes for democrats, which were caught and corrected by voters......

Etc Etc....

Ignore all you want, the reality is you have one minor thing that you want to harp on, when there are demonstrable misconduct on the part of the left that isn't making a blip on the radar. Corruption exists everywhere, but its on one side more than the other.

That sounds all well and good, sort of a legislative "caveat emptor" but the health care bill was how many thousands of pages of legalese? Even the people who signed the bill did not understand the ramifications, so how can we reasonably expect that some kid working the drive thru lane will be able to educate himself to the pros and cons of each parties position?

This is not one side of a political argument, it is a statement of intent.

ie "If X occurs then Y will be the result."

ersonally I would be majorly pissed off if I had my pay cut without notice then I found out later they could have informed me but were afraid to tell me.

So does that mean the unions long standing and far more egregious history of doing the same type thing should be ignored in favor of lambasting a single instance initiated by a local manager of a business? That is a rather blatant hypocrisy that I'm surprised you actualy favor.

Someone has been drinking the smart juice. Seriously, you've been on fire lately, Haplo. Remind me not to cross you. :up:

Thank ya Takeda. :salute:

I just call it like I see it and am glad that people on BOTH sides are starting - just starting - to see that BOTH sides screw up. I won't defend the manager much in this case - he did something that was dirty, underhanded and violated the INTENT of voter protection laws, regardless of not violating the letter of the law. If anything - the guy should be skewered for violating the core ethics of the group he was trying to support.

On the other hand, the lack of attention to other "irregularities" does get to me, because its almost like we, the general public, "expect" bad behavior from some and without calling it out - it can't be fixed. Its not to deride the group - because its not everyone that does it. But if its not addressed publicly - it will keep going - on BOTH sides.

Isn't that exactly what each side of a political argument is, a statement of intent? Each party states what his intent is, and the pros of it, and the cons of the opponent's intents.

All I know is the friggin happy meal is being banned. :down:

crap...now where will i get all my free toys? :wah:

No a political argument is a statement of preference, not intent.

"If elected I will push for a ban on dark beer." <-- Preference
"If dark beer is banned I will stop serving it in my pub" <--- Intent